Transcription

1 Quantificational DPs, Part 3: Covert Movement vs. Type Shifting 1 1. Introduction Thus far, we ve considered two competing analyses of sentences like those in (1). (1) Sentences Where a Quantificational DP is not in Subject Position a. Barack likes every boy. b. Joe likes some boys. (2) The Movement Account (Syntactic Account) While sentences like those in (1) are pronounced with the quantificational DPs in object position, their semantics is derived from a more abstract structure where the quantificational DP has undergone (covert / silent / invisible ) movement. a. Pronounced Form: / bəɹɑk lɑjks ɛvɹi bɔj / b. Surface Structure: [ Barack [ likes [ every boy ] ] ] b. Logical Form: [ [ every boy ] [ 1 [ Barack likes t 1 ] ] ] (3) The Type-Shifting Account (Semantic Account) In sentences like (1), the quantificational DP is not of type <et,t>, but of type <eet,et>. There is a phonologically empty type-shifting operator (SHIFT QD ) which can combine with the determiner every to create a derived <et, <eet, et>> determiner. [[ SHIFT QD ]] = [ λd <et, <et,t> : [ λg <et> [ λf <eet> [ λy e : d(g)( [ λz e : f(z)(y) = T] ) ] ] ] ] (4) Burning Question Is there any way to empirically decide which of these analyses is correct? (5) The Truth There is no obvious answer as to which is the better of the two analyses. Both analyses face problems, but the problems they face are different. Both analyses have been adjusted to deal with the sorts of problems they face, to the point that the debate is really over entire frameworks (or world-views, really ) 1 These notes are based upon the material in Heim & Kratzer (1998: ). 1

2 2. Some Advantages of the Movement Account over the Type-Shifting Account We will first examine some advantages that the movement account offers over the type-shifting account (as currently formulated). We will then take a look at some outstanding problems for the movement account (ones that the type-shifting account isn t necessarily immune to, either). 2.1 Verbs with More than One Argument Consider the sentence in (6a). The movement account is able to interpret it by hypothesizing that it has the LF in (6c). (6) Quantificational DPs in Ditransitive Structures a. Sentence: Barack gave every book to Joe. b. Hypothesized SS: [ S Barack [ VP [ VP gave every book ] to Joe ] ] c. Hypothesized LF: [ S [ DP every book] [ S 1 [ S Barack gave t 1 to Joe ] ] ] (7) Crucial Problem (for Type-Shifting Account) Our type shifting operator in (3) is not able to interpret the SS in (6b). It seems that that every book in (6a,b) is the first argument of give. To interpret every book in-situ, then, it must take an <eeet> function as argument. However, SHIFT QD in (3) will only yield a DP of type <eet, et>, not <eeet, eet>. (8) Solution (for Type-Shifting Account) We introduce the following, new type-shifting operator: [[ SHIFT QD2 ]] = [ λd <et, <et,t> : [ λg <et> [ λf <eeet> [ λy e : [ λx e : d(g)( [ λz e : f(z)(y)(x) = T] ) ] ] ] ] (9) The Criticism (for Type-Shifting Account) The movement account is already straightforwardly able to interpret (6a). The type-shifting account has to introduce a new operator to interpret (6a). 2

3 2.2 Pronominal Binding In the last unit, we saw that sentences like (10a) can receive a bound reading like that in (10b). (10) Binding by Quantificational Subjects a. Every man loves the woman who loves him. b. For all x, if x is a man, then x loves the unique y such that y is a woman and y loves x. We also saw that, under our theory of binding, we could only derive the bound reading in (10b) from the movement LF in (11a). The LF in (11b) will only be assigned a referential reading. (11) Movement and Binding a. LF Receiving the Bound Reading of (10a) [ [Every man] [ 1 [ t 1 loves [ the woman who loves him 1 ] ] ] ] b. LF Receiving the Referential Reading of (10a) [ [ Every man ] [ loves the woman who loves him 1 ] ] (13) The Challenge for the Type-Shifting Account It looks like we need to assume some variety of invisible movement in order to obtain the bound-reading of (10a). So, why not suppose that such movement is also at play in examples like (1)? (14) The Obvious Answer to the Challenge: A Different Syntax/Semantics for Binding The challenge in (13) stems from the assumption that only movement can introduce the lambda operators that effectuate pronominal binding so maybe we re just wrong about that 2.3 Antecedent Contained Deletion (The Gold Standard ) For many folks, the key empirical argument for covert movement of quantificational DPs is the phenomenon of Antecedent Contained Deletion. (15) Initial Observation Regarding VP-Ellipsis Ellipsis of a VP can only take place is there is some matching VP in the context. a. Dave went to school, and I did too. ( = I went to school.) ( I went to work ) 3

4 If the generalization in (15) is correct, then what are we to make of the following sentences? (16) Antecedent Contained Deletion (ACD) a. Dave read every book Phil did. b. Dave saw something Phil didn t. (17) The Nature of The Elided VPs If we were to spell out the elided VPs in (16), they would intuitively be the following. a. Dave read every book Phil [ read t 1 ] b. Dave saw something Phil didn t [ see t 1 ] (18) The Crucial Question Where is the matching VP in (16)/(17)? In the surface forms in (17), there is no other VP of the form [ read/saw t 1 ]! (19) The Solution (Movement Account) The movement account provides a solution to the puzzle in (18). Note that the LFs derived from the surface forms in (17) would have to be as follows: a. [ [ every book [ Phil [ read t 1 ] ] ] [ 2 [ Dave [ read t 2 ] ] b. [ [ something [ Phil didn t [ see t 1 ] ] ] [ 2 [ Dave [ saw t 2 ] ] Key Observations The LFs in (19) will be assigned the correct T-conditions for (16)/(17) In these LFs, there is a VP which matches the elided VP in the relative clause! Namely, the VP created by (covert) movement of the quantificational DP! (20) The Challenge (For the Type-Shifting Account) Because the movement account hypothesizes that the quantificational DPs in (16)/(17) undergo covert movement, that account automatically generates a possible antecedent for the ellipsis in (16). Under the type-shifting account, the quantificational DPs do not undergo movement from the VP at any stage of the derivation so the question remains: where is the matching VP that licenses the ellipsis? 4

5 (21) A Possible Response to the Challenge (Jacobson 1998) It is possible to analyze ACD sentences like (16) as cases of verb ellipsis, and not VP ellipsis. If this kind of analysis is correct (and that s where the debate lies), then (16) is not a problem for a type-shifting account o That is, we only need to find the matching verb read/saw, and so we don t need to have a trace in the matrix VP. 2.4 Inverse Scope A classic observation about sentences like (22a) is that they are ambiguous, and admit of both the readings in (22b) and (22c). (22) Inverse Scope in English a. A girl likes every boy. b. Surface Scope Reading There is some x such that x is a girl and for all y, if y is a boy, then x likes y (i) Verifying Scenario: Mary likes Bill, Tom, and Dave. (ii) Falsifying Scenario: Mary likes Bill, but not Tom and Dave. Sue likes Tom and Dave, but not Bill. c. Inverse Scope Reading For all y, if y is a boy, then there is some x such that x is a girl and x likes y. (i) Verifying Scenario: Mary likes Bill, but not Tom and Dave. Sue likes Tom and Dave, but not Bill. (23) Key Observation Our movement account predicts the existence of the inverse scope reading in (22c). Our movement account would predict the following is a possible LF structure for sentence (22a): [ S [ DP every boy ] [ S 1 [ S a girl likes t 1 ] ] ] The structure above will be computed to have the T-conditions in (22c) (Exercise for the reader) 5

6 (24) The Challenge (for the Type-Shifting Account) As the derivation below shows, our type shifting operator in (3) is not able to derive the inverse scope reading of (22a). Illustrative Derivation: a. [[ a girl likes every boy ]] = T iff (by FA) b. [[ a girl ]] ( [[ likes every boy ]] ) = T iff (by (3), FA, LC, notation) c. [[ a girl ]] ( [ λy : for all x, if x is a boy, then y likes x ] ) = T iff (by FA, LC, notation) d. There is a y such that y is a girl, and for all x, if x is a boy, then y likes x. (25) Solution (for the Type-Shifting Account): Another Type Shifting Operator! [[ SHIFT Inverse ]] = [ λd <et, <et,t> : [ λg <et> [ λf <eet> [ λh <et,t> : d(g) ( [ λx e : h ([ λy e : f(x)(y) = T ]) = T ] ) = T ]]]] (exercise to the reader: show that (25) does indeed get the inverse reading in (22c)) (26) The Criticism (for Type-Shifting Account) The movement account directly predicts the inverse reading in (22c) The type-shifting account has to introduce a new operator to capture these facts (27) A Counter-Criticism (for the Movement Account) The type-shifting account directly predicts the surface scope reading in (22b). The movement account can only predict (22b) if it allows for LFs that look like the following: [ S [ Some girl ] [ S 1 [ S [ every boy ] [ S 2 [ S t 1 likes t 2 ] ] But whatever movements derive these LFs covertly don t seem to be possible movements that can occur overtly in English. some girl, every boy likes does not have a reading akin to (22b) So, the only way the movement account can capture the surface scope reading is by weakening of the theory of movement so that covert movement can do some things that overt movement can t 6

7 2.5 Constraints on Quantifier Scope The following is a central prediction of the movement-based account: (32) The Movement-Scope Generalization If general principles of movement prevent a DP in a sentence S from moving to a position above X, then S will not admit of an interpretation where DP has scope above X. Why Does the Generalization Hold? Suppose that DP is in a position in S where it can t move to XP (for reasons relating to general principles of movement) [ S [ XP X [ YP DP ] ] Movement Blocked (For Principled Reasons) (All things being equal), it follows that DP can t move to XP covertly either. Consequently, S can t be interpreted as if DP has scope over X. (33) Illustration: Relative Clause Islands General principles entail that movement cannot extract something from a relative clause. a. * No boy, Dave knows a man who likes. Consequently, the movement theory predicts that (33c) is not a possible LF for (33b). b. Dave knows a man who likes no boy. c. [ [ No boy ] [ 1 [ Dave knows a man who likes t 1 ] ] ] Thus, the theory correctly predicts that (33b) does not have a reading with the T- conditions in (33d). d. There is no x such that x is a boy and Dave knows a man who likes x. How Do We Know That (33d) is Not a Reading of (33b)? If it were a reading, then (33b) could be understood as true in the following scenario, and this doesn t seem to be the case. Verifying Scenario for (33d): Dave knows a woman who likes Steve Dave knows a girl who likes Frank Dave knows a dog who likes John. 7

8 (34) Illustration: Adjunct Islands General principles entail that movement cannot extract something from a clausal adjunct. a. * No boy, If Dave sees, he will go home. Consequently, the movement theory predicts that (34c) is not a possible LF for (34b). b. If Dave sees no boy, he will go home. c. [ [ No boy ] [ 1 [ If Dave sees t 1, he will go home ] ] ] Thus, the theory correctly predicts that (34b) does not have a reading with the T- conditions in (34d). d. There is no x such that x is a boy, and if Dave sees x, he will go home. How Do We Know That (34d) is Not a Reading of (34b)? If it were a reading, then (34b) could be understood as consistent with the following statement, and this doesn t seem to be the case: Whatever happens, Dave will not go home. (35) Illustration: Wh-Islands General principles entail that movement cannot extract something from a wh-clause. a. * This book, Dave knows who to give to. Consequently, the movement theory predicts that (35c) is not a possible LF for (35b). b. Dave knows who to give no book to. c. [ No book ] [ 1 [ Dave knows who to give t 1 to ] ] Thus, the theory correctly predicts that (35b) does not have a reading with the T- conditions in (35d). d. There is no x such that x is a book and Dave knows who to give x to. How Do We Know That (35d) is Not a Reading of (35b)? If it were a reading, then (35b) could be understood as consistent with the following statement, and this doesn t seem to be the case: Dave does not know what to give to anybody. 8

9 (36) The Criticism (for Type-Shifting Account) The movement account straightforwardly predicts the generalization in (32) and thus the data in (33)-(35). It s not at all clear how the type-shifting account can capture the overall generalization in (32). (37) A Counter-Criticism (for the Movement Account) As we will see in a moment, the parallels between (i) the constraints on overt movement, and (ii) the constraints on the possible scopes of a DP, are not necessarily as close as the movement account predicts in (32) a. There seem to be cases where a quantificational DP can have scope over positions that it shouldn t be able to move to. b. There seem to be cases where a quantificational DP can t have scope over positions that it should be able to move to. (And there are type-shifting accounts that are able to capture some of the parallels above all the parallels above show is that long-distance dependencies and scope share some of the same mechanisms but that mechanism isn t obviously movement ) 3. Some Challenges to the Movement Account We will now take a look at some challenges that the movement account faces. Interestingly, while the type-shifting account seems to be immune to one of these challenges, it isn t obviously immune to all of them 3.1 DPs Scoping Out of Subjects Consider the sentence in (38a); it seems to have the T-conditions in (38b). (38) A DP Scoping Out of the Subject a. An apple in every basket was rotten. b. For every x, if x is a basket, then there is a y such that y is an apple in x, and y was rotten. In order to derive the observed T-conditions in (38b), the movement-account must (it seems) allow for the LF in (39a) to be derived from the SS in (38a). However, as illustrated in (39b), general principles of movement are generally taken to preclude extraction from subjects. 9

10 (39) Necessary Appeal to Illicit Extraction From Subjects a. The LF that Reading (38b) Requires: [ S [ every basket ] [ S 1 [ S [ DP an apple in t 1 ] [ VP was rotten ] ] ] ] b. Extraction from Subjects is Generally Impossible * Every basket, an apple in was rotten. (40) The Solutions (for the Movement Account) a. Conclusion 1: Maybe, for some reason, subjects don t function as islands for covert movement? Problem: At the moment, it s an unprincipled, stipulative weakening of the theory of movement. b. Conclusion 2: Maybe the DP in (38a) isn t moving out of the subject, but only to the edge of the subject? (See Heim & Kratzer (1998: )) Problem: This will still not result in an interpretable structure, unless you assume some kind of type-shifting of every basket takes place. in which case, why not suppose that such type-shifting operators also account for sentences like (1) 3.2 DPs Scoping Out of Finite Clauses (41) Observation 1: Overt Movement from Finite Clauses is Easy English readily allows for phrases to be overtly moved out of finite clauses. a. Dave, I knew that Mary liked. (42) Observation 2: Scoping Out of Finite Clauses is Hard Generally speaking, it s hard for a sentence containing a DP inside a finite subordinate clause to receive an interpretation where the DP has scope above the subordinate clause. a. Sentence: I knew that Mary liked no boy. b. Impossible Reading: There is no x such that x is a boy and I knew Mary liked x. 10

11 (43) Observation 3: Scoping Out of Non-Finite Clauses is Easier Generally speaking, it s not very difficult for a sentence with a DP inside a non-finite clause to receive an interpretation where the DP has scope above the clause. a. Sentence: I wanted Mary to kiss no boy. b. Possible Reading: There is no x such that x is a boy and I wanted Mary to kiss x. (44) The Challenge (for the Movement Account) If the reading in (43b) of (43a) is generated via covert movement of the DP no boy to a position above the matrix subject and if such movement from a finite clause as in (41a) is possible in general then why isn t (42b) a possible reading for (42a)?? (45) Solution (for the Movement Account) Maybe, for some reason, covert movement can t take place across finite clauses? Problem: At the moment, it s an unprincipled, stipulative weakening of the theory of movement. 3.3 DPs Scoping Below Negation A classic observation about sentences like (46a) is that they are ambiguous, and admit of both the readings in (46b) and (46c). (46) Scoping Above and Below Negation a. Dave didn t see a dog. b. Wide Scope Reading of A Dog There is an x such that x is a dog and Dave didn t see x. (True if there is some particular dog Snoopy which Dave didn t see Consistent with there being other dogs Dave did see ) c. Narrow Scope Reading of A Dog It is not the case that there exists an x such that x is a dog and Dave saw x. (True only if Dave didn t see any dog Inconsistent with there being any dog seen by Dave ) 11

12 (47) Key Observation 1 The movement account easily predicts the wide scope reading in (46b). a. Possible LF for (46a) [ [ a dog ] [ 1 [ Dave didn t see t 1 ] ] ] b. T-Conditions Assigned to (46a): There is an x such that x is a dog and Dave didn t see x. (48) Potential Problem How does the movement account generate the narrow scope reading in (46c)? To generate the narrow scope reading, the DP a dog has to be in a position where it is in the scope of not. However, simply moving the DP to a position internal to the VP won t result in an interpretable structure (without type-shifting). VP DP <et,t> VP <eet> a dog 1 VP <et> V <eet> t 1 see (49) Minor Observation Our type-shifting operator in (3) predicts the narrow scope reading in (46c). ( however it doesn t predict the wide scope reading ) Sample Derivation a. [[ Dave didn t see a dog ]] = T iff (by FA) b. [[ didn t see a dog ]] (Dave) = T iff (by FA, LC, notation) c. [[ see a dog ]] (Dave) = F iff (by FA, notation) d. [ λx : there exists a y such that y is a dog and x saw y ](Dave) = F iff e. It is not the case that there exists a y such that y is a dog and Dave saw y. 12

13 (50) Possible Solution: Movement of Neg? (Chierchia & McConnell-Ginet 2000) Perhaps it s possible to covertly move negation from the clause-internal position to some position above a dog? a. The (Vaguely) Imagined LF for (46c) [ not [ [ a dog ] [ 1 [ Dave saw t 1 ] ] ] If we suppose that not in this position receives the same meaning as it is not the case that, then we might be able to derive the T-conditions in (46c). Problems: This analysis requires some significant adjustment to our theory of movement: (The following points will be most clear to those with some syntax background:) (i) (ii) The movement of not in (50a) seems not to leave a trace, which is otherwise expected of movement. The movement of not in (50a) would seem to violate the so-called Head Movement Constraint in syntax. a solution that s more commonly accepted nowadays trades on the following, now-common view regarding the syntax of subjects (51) VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis a. The subject of a sentence is initially generated in a position inside the VP (below negation, and any adverbs or auxiliaries. Base Structure of Barack doesn t smoke [ TP does [ NegP not [ VP Barack 1 smoke ] ] ] b. In English, the subject must be moved outside of the VP before the pronunciation of the sentence is determined. Surface Structure of Barack doesn t smoke [ TP Barack 1 [ TP 1 [ TP does [ NegP not [ VP t 1 smoke ] ] ] ] ] 13

14 (52) New Semantics for Not Under the syntactic proposal in (51), a VP is now of type t. Consequently, we must employ the following semantics for sentential negation: [[ not ]] = [ λp t : p = F ] Exercise to the reader: Confirm that this semantics for not will assign the correct T-conditions to the LF in (51b). (53) Solution to (48): Covert Movement to VP a. Key Assumption Let us assume that a direct object can covertly move to VP, just below negation; that is, let us assume that (46a) can have the LF below. b. A New LF for (46a): S Dave 1 S 1 VP not VP DP 2 VP a dog 2 VP t 1 VP V t 2 saw c. Key Observation: The LF in (53b) will be assigned the narrow scope T-conditions in (46c). (54) Criticism (for the Movement Account) The postulated covert movement in (53b) cannot occur overtly (cf. our earlier criticism of the movement analysis of inverse scope). a. * Dave didn t a dog see. 14

15 (55) An Overall Criticism of the Movement Account In order for the movement account to capture basic features of the semantics of English, it must assume that covert movement differs in crucial respects from overt movement: Properties of Covert, but Not Overt Movement: a. Subjects are not islands for covert movement (maybe) b. Covert movement (of quantificational DPs) cannot apply across finite clauses c. Covert movement (of quantificational DPs) can stop at SpecVP d. Covert movement can adjoin multiple DPs to S Nowadays, linguists are comfortable with these assumptions, but we should never forget that they represent a weakening of the theory of movement so remember the funny properties in (55) the next time you or someone you love is inclined to criticize type-shifting accounts for having too many stipulated operators (or rules) 15

Constituency The basic units of sentence structure Meaning of a sentence is more than the sum of its words. Meaning of a sentence is more than the sum of its words. a. The puppy hit the rock Meaning of

The compositional semantics of same Mike Solomon Amherst College Abstract Barker (2007) proposes the first strictly compositional semantic analysis of internal same. I show that Barker s analysis fails

Tense, Aspect and Aktionsart 1. The Semantics of Tense, Part 1: Tense Logic Overarching Question: What does tense morphology (in English) mean? What is the core semantic difference between the sentences

Spring 2012, April 5 Missing morphology Variability in acquisition Morphology and functional structure Morphosyntax in acquisition In L1A, we observe that kids don t always provide all the morphology that

Lambda Abstraction (Chierchia & McConnell-Ginet Chapter 7) Lambda calculus was invented by Alonzo Church in the 1940s and 50s. In 1957 John McCarthy designed the programming language LISP, based on the

Constraints in Phrase Structure Grammar Phrase Structure Grammar no movement, no transformations, context-free rules X/Y = X is a category which dominates a missing category Y Let G be the set of basic

Non-nominal Which-Relatives Doug Arnold, Robert D. Borsley University of Essex The properties of non-restrictive relatives All non-restrictive relative clauses include a wh-word. There are no that or zero

Brochure More information from http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/2853521/ Contrasting English and German Grammar: An Introduction to Syntax and Semantics Description: This book offers an introduction

CHAPTER 7 GENERAL PROOF SYSTEMS 1 Introduction Proof systems are built to prove statements. They can be thought as an inference machine with special statements, called provable statements, or sometimes

2 What is a sentence? Morphology & Syntax Sentences Sentence as a informational-discursive unit A complete thought, generally including a topic and a comment about the topic Boys are naughtier. Boys will

What VP Ellipsis Can Do, and What it Can t, but not Why * Kyle Johnson University of Massachusetts Amherst VP Ellipsis is the name given to instances of anaphora in which a missing predicate, like that

Lecture 4 Deep Structure and Transformations Thus far, we got the impression that the base component (phrase structure rules and lexicon) of the Standard Theory of syntax generates sentences and assigns

The Syntax of Predicate Logic LX 502 Semantics I October 11, 2008 1. Below the Sentence-Level In Propositional Logic, atomic propositions correspond to simple sentences in the object language. Since atomic

COMPARATIVES WITHOUT DEGREES: A NEW APPROACH FRIEDERIKE MOLTMANN IHPST, Paris fmoltmann@univ-paris1.fr It has become common to analyse comparatives by using degrees, so that John is happier than Mary would

7 Summary, Discussion and Conclusions 7.1 Introduction In the past four decades, children s non-adult-like understanding of quantified sentences has been explained in syntactic, semantic or pragmatic terms

Estudios de Asia y Africa Idiomas Modernas I What you should have learnt from Face2Face 1A Question Forms 1.1 Yes-No Questions 1. If the first verb is an auxiliary verb, just move it in front of the Subject:

Sounds Like Like Peter Lasersohn University of Rochester Abstract: It is argued that the verb sound is ambiguous between one reading where it denotes a two-place relation between individuals and properties,

A Short ourse in Logic xample 8 I) Recognizing Arguments III) valuating Arguments II) Analyzing Arguments valuating Arguments with More than one Line of Reasoning valuating If then Premises Independent

S LX 522 Syntax I Week 2b. onstituents (3.1-3.4) The structure of sentences 1) You will give it to her 2) You will give book to your roommate 3) You will give book about syntax to your roommate s sister

Every versus Each: Some Observations and Proposals 1. Introduction: Some Reflections on the Meaning of Each (1) Overarching Question: What the heck does each mean a. when it is adnominal: Each boy walked

Sorensen on Unknowable Obligations Theodore Sider Utilitas 7 (1995): 273 9 1. Access principles Vagueness in the phrase can know aside, the principle of Access An act is obligatory only if its agent can

Is the Symmetry Problem Really a Problem? Eliza Block The Symmetry Problem 1 is a simple and powerful challenge to the Gricean explanation of a certain class of Quantity implicatures, to the effect that

Is there repair by ellipsis? Craig Sailor University of Groningen cwsailor@gmail.com Carson T. Schütze UCLA cschutze@ucla.edu Draft: December, 2014 Written for The book of syntactic questions 100 ideas

A Primer in the Semantics of English Some Nuts and Bolts 2000-2010 by Terence Parsons A Primer in the Semantics of English Some Nuts and Bolts Chapter 0: Preliminary Issues 0.1 What Sentences Do 0.2 Standing-for

Introduction INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC Lecture 4 The Syntax of Predicate Logic Dr. James Studd I counsel you, dear friend, in sum, That first you take collegium logicum. Your spirit s then well broken in for

1 Right Node Raising and the LCA CHRIS WILDER 1 Constituent sharing in coordination In (1), a typical right node raising (RNR) sentence, the object the book is a constituent shared by the verbs of both

Section 3 Sequences and Limits Definition A sequence of real numbers is an infinite ordered list a, a 2, a 3, a 4,... where, for each n N, a n is a real number. We call a n the n-th term of the sequence.

Propositional Logic LX 502 - Semantics September 19, 2008 1. Semantics and Propositions Natural language is used to communicate information about the world, typically between a speaker and an addressee.

Frege s theory of sense Jeff Speaks August 25, 2011 1. Three arguments that there must be more to meaning than reference... 1 1.1. Frege s puzzle about identity sentences 1.2. Understanding and knowledge

Michael Lacewing Kant s deontological ethics DEONTOLOGY Deontologists believe that morality is a matter of duty. We have moral duties to do things which it is right to do and moral duties not to do things

Introduction to General Linguistics WS12/13 page 1 Syntax 6 The finite verb and the clause: Course teacher: Sam Featherston Important things you will learn in this section: The head of the clause The positions

An Innocent Investigation D. Joyce, Clark University January 2006 The beginning. Have you ever wondered why every number is either even or odd? I don t mean to ask if you ever wondered whether every number

WHAT ARE MATHEMATICAL PROOFS AND WHY THEY ARE IMPORTANT? introduction Many students seem to have trouble with the notion of a mathematical proof. People that come to a course like Math 216, who certainly

A Case Study in Semantic Fieldwork: Modality in Tlingit In this handout, I ll walk you step-by-step through one small part of a semantic fieldwork project on an understudied language: Tlingit, a Na-Dene

Universidad de Los Andes Facultad de Humanidades y Educación Escuela de Idiomas Modernos NOTES ON WORDS, PHRASES, SENTENCES AND CLAUSES In English, as in many other languages in the world, individual words

SYNTAX Syntax the study of the system of rules and categories that underlies sentence formation. 1) Syntactic categories lexical: - words that have meaning (semantic content) - words that can be inflected

Steps to Proving a Theorem Step 1: Understand Goal What am I looking for? What should the last sentence in my proof say? What are some equivalent ways to state what I want? Are there any complicated definitions

#2 Claims and Reasons 1 Argument Mapping 2: Claims and Reasons We ll start with the very basics here, so be patient. It becomes far more challenging when we apply these basic rules to real arguments, as

Induction Margaret M. Fleck 10 October 011 These notes cover mathematical induction and recursive definition 1 Introduction to induction At the start of the term, we saw the following formula for computing

NOÛS 43:2 (2009) 286 314 The Meta-Problem of Change THOMAS HOFWEBER University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 1. Introduction One of the central problems in metaphysics over the last so many centuries

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON University of London EXAMINATION FOR INTERNAL STUDENTS For the following qualifications :- B.A. Italian X255: Issues in Italian Syntax COURSE CODE : ITALX255 UNIT VALUE : 0.50

Chapter 1 Mathematical Logic In its most basic form, Mathematics is the practice of assigning truth to welldefined statements. In this course, we will develop the skills to use known true statements to

Aquinas Third Way Last time we had arrived at the following provisional interpretation of Aquinas second way: 1. 2. 3. 4. At least one thing has an efficient cause. Every causal chain must either be circular,

Predicate Logic PHI 201 Introductory Logic Spring 2011 This is a summary of definitions in Predicate Logic from the text The Logic Book by Bergmann et al. 1 The Language PLE Vocabulary The vocabulary of

Michael Lacewing Personal identity: Physical and psychological continuity theories A FIRST DISTINCTION In order to understand what is at issue in personal identity, it is important to distinguish between

MAT2400 Analysis I A brief introduction to proofs, sets, and functions In Analysis I there is a lot of manipulations with sets and functions. It is probably also the first course where you have to take

Lecture 8 The Subjective Theory of Betting on Theories Patrick Maher Philosophy 517 Spring 2007 Introduction The subjective theory of probability holds that the laws of probability are laws that rational

Invalidity in Predicate Logic So far we ve got a method for establishing that a predicate logic argument is valid: do a derivation. But we ve got no method for establishing invalidity. In propositional

There are differences in constituent ordering within the determiner phrase (DP) between English and Romance language though they are head-initial languages. The noun (N) is in the right edge within the

apter 1 1 Am I experiencing I didn t see myself as an abused woman. The only images I had came from television. I thought of abused women as weak, quiet and less educated women who were battered and bruised.

CHAPTER 3 Methods of Proofs 1. Logical Arguments and Formal Proofs 1.1. Basic Terminology. An axiom is a statement that is given to be true. A rule of inference is a logical rule that is used to deduce

Semantics The Basics Definition: the study of linguistic meaning Semantics is part of the grammar. The Basics The meaning of a complex expression is determined by: the meanings of its parts, and the way

Math 101 Rumbos Spring 2010 1 Handout #1: Mathematical Reasoning 1 Propositional Logic A proposition is a mathematical statement that it is either true or false; that is, a statement whose certainty or